Choose one or more Data Representation Syntaxes (also called Markup Languages or Data Formats) to use when creating Resources with Content based on your chosen Data Model. Some Syntaxes in common use today are HTML+RDFa, N3, Turtle, RDF/XML, TriX, XRDS, GData, and OData; there are many others.

Related

I wondered during the last time a bit about your utilization of EAV as substitution of SPO. As far as I understand EAV, all values are literals. Hence, it wouldn't really fit to SPO, or? Please, correct, if I'm wrong.

EAV is just an Entity-Attribute-Value 3-tuple pattern. I equate it to Subject-Predicate-Object. When I do my equivalence though, I explicitly state the addition of Reference Values in the E & A slots with V being optional.

EAV or in actuality EAV/CR + URIs == more open approach to Linked Data :-)

I can fully follow your arguments. However, I only started wondering, when I had looked forward to a (old) reference* (since EAV is an old knowledge representation structure) that is similar to your definition. After a longer google search and inspection of the Wikipedia page of EAV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity-attribute-value_model), I came to the conclusion, that the value part of EAV is bind to data types (hence literals).

As far as I understand EAV/CR, it is used to define further substructures. SPO is regarding that issue open, or?

I can fully follow your arguments. However, I only started wondering, when I had looked forward to a (old) reference* (since EAV is an old knowledge representation structure) that is similar to your definition. After a longer google search and inspection of the Wikipedia page of EAV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity-attribute-value_model), I came to the conclusion, that the value part of EAV is bind to data types (hence literals).

As far as I understand EAV/CR, it is used to define further substructures. SPO is regarding that issue open, or?

>>

SPO and EAV are both dealing with 3-tuples. Adding URIs to either re. insertion of Reference values (via URIs) is vital to Linked Data. Typed Literals *granularity* is just that, granularity.

More people understand EAV than do SPO.

Starting a story with EAV eventually unveils the power of 3-tuple based propositions + URIs where data is defined and constrained by Logic based Conceptual Schema is really the big picture objective.

<< I'm still not sure to endorse EAV' == SPO. >>

Depends on your audience. If they're are clueless about SPO (which is going to be the norm), then you can take the EAV route.

Bottom line, this isn't about EAV vs SPO. It's just about constructing a coherent narrative that fits into a broader industry innovation continuum. People should be able to learn this stuff by leveraging history etc..

RDF bestowed from outer space re., "The Semantic Web" misnomer has been shown to be too provincial, and ultimately a broken narrative IMHO.